Are Constitutional Violations a Crime?

[Keith Broaders]

If a Senator or Representative votes in favor of legislation that violates provisions of the Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights, has that individual committed a crime and should they be punished or removed from office?

Please post your comments in the section below.

What is Your Opinion?

 

 

[Pat Fields]

For some strange reason I'm having difficulty posting a response to a statement Mr Jon Roland made in the thread, so I'm posting it separately as I consider the matter important to clear up.

Jon definitively asserted ... "Nonsense. In law cApItAlIZaTiOn SiGnIFiEs NoThInG. Patriot bullshit. There is a problem but that it not it" (sic)

My response to Jon is  that ...

I must beg to differ from your opinion ...

It is required at ... 19 Pa. Code § 17.1. General standards ... that
 (a)  An association name may be in any language, but shall be expressed in Roman letters or characters or Arabic or Roman numerals. As to the use of ‘‘Inc.’’ or an equivalent corporate designator, see the discussion in this subpart under the applicable type of association.

Therefore, stylization in 'Roman Letters' (i.e.: A,B,C.D, etc.)  is intentionally indicative that the entity so expressed is ... a corporation. You may want to look in your own State's Code regarding 'Corporations, Names'.

[Jon Roland]

"Roman letters" includes lower case. It also includes multiple fonts, like bold, Italic, etc. It would not include Dingbats. The statute merely demands that people write clearly so everyone can understand them. It says nothing about capitalization meaning something different from lower case.

[Terry Trussell]

Jon, what!? No dingbats?! I do my best writing in Dingbatese. What about backwards or upside down letters?

Seriously, I appreciate the information. There is so much misleading info flying about, it just wastes time, and that's an ever-increasingly precious commodity to me. You're helping me become a more discerning reader, and after reading your posts, I feel smarter already. Thanks.

[Pat Fields]

Jon, the 'lower case' of Roman letters are the exact same characters as the 'upper case', only a third smaller. It's the visually attained stylization of 'all cap'  ... distinction ... which is imposed on formation of corporation names. Despite what you struggle to maintain with allusion to 'clear writing' and such, one has to broadly depart from the text of the statute to arrive at such 'spirit'.

[Jon Roland]

Nonsense. By "Roman" they mean upper and lower case characters. It is not the ancient Roman characters, but the modern ones. That can also be seen in the statute itself, which is using upper and lower case, and everyone involved knew those characters as "Roman". You are trying to invent a new myth by claiming otherwise.

The burden of proof is on you. Produce a statute that says "Upper and lower case letters used in words give those words different meanings." Or words to that effect. You can't do it, because it does not exist. You are just pulling things out of your imagination, inflamed by the rantings of paranoid fools.

[Pat Fields]

Sir .nonsense' is an expression of personal perceptive reflection. You may thus decry literally everything as 'nonsense' ... according to your own comprehension.

The incontrovertable fact is that Roman lettering is as I've stated. To disprove it, you can easily share a link to an example of such distinctly separate upper and lower case figures

Nevertheless, the crux is not a matter of case sensitive 'spelling', but of 'distinction' made apparent through ... style. Comprehension is more akin to Heraldic symbology.

[Jon Roland]

See this https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_alphabet and other documentation of what "Roman" letters are. Both upper and lower case. For the history of lower case, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_case which informs us that they began to be used before 1300 AD.

Stop saying your position is "incontrovertable" (sic) when it can be disproved in a few seconds with a simple web search.

[Pat Fields]

Sir, you're incorrigibly prejudiced. What you've presented proves my position, yet you intentionally convolute the plain truth in vain hope of convincing anyone gullible enough to simply accept your mere contention.

The 'lower case' you allege is phonetic pronunciation in English characters.

[Jon Roland]

What I presented is documentary evidence of the foolish things you have been writing here. You either are unable to read them with more than a second-grade comprehension or you are choosing to lie about what they plainly say.

Lower case is not phonetic. For that matter, neither is uppercase. They once were somewhat phonetic in ancient Latin but drifted away from that, which is why some languages adopted somewhat different, or even entirely different, alphabets. But they almost all have upper and lower case characters, used in similar ways, one lower for each upper (and sometimes more than one during times past).

[Pat Fields]

I'll be fascinated to see how you transmogrify the obvious evidence of this ...

http://chestofbooks.com/architecture/Cyclopedia-Carpentry-Building-...

Or this ...

http://www.citrinitas.com/history_of_viscom/alphabet.html

Or this ...

http://www.metmuseum.org/Collections/search-the-collections/252533

where not a single example of Roman inscription is formed in any illustration but in equally sized block lettering.

Now, the further you take this, Jon, the more blatant your utter willfulness is to be increasingly revealed. Moreover, desperate, diversionary allusions to disability in my reading comprehension, only betray the encroaching degree of recognizing the hopeless fate of your position.

As you'd bullied onto another poster, elsewhere ...

Just face the facts and get over it.

[Pat Fields]

Well,  sadly I have to surmise that Jon Roland has seen fit to block my replies to his posts, so I have to resort to separate entries for response to his statements, where I think it sufficiently important.

This instance, Jon asserts ... "More nonsense. There are not "two constitutions" of government", offering the 'Social Compact' theory which expressly rejects Supreme Sovereign Power of The People, otherwise repeatedly sustained by various courts. In evidence, I first submit ...

"The idea prevails with some -- indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar -- that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one, to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise."
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901); and secondly ...

"People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belong to the King, by his prerogative." (Lansing v. Smith (1829) 4 Wend. 9,20)

[Jon Roland]

I am not a moderator and have no power to block any posts or remove any but my own.

"substantially or practically two national governments" is saying nothing about two "constitutions". It is complaining about practices that are not consistent with the Constitution, which essentially supports the concerns of many in this forum. A "constitution" is what is lawfully required, not what is actually done. Practice inconsistent with law is the problem, but such practice does not have or define its own "constitution". There is not some alternative system of law with its own rules that people can somehow learn and perhaps use to beat them at their own game. Usurpers have no law. They are just winging it, from one day to the next, not even attempting to be consistent with themselves.